NITINKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(8), SURAT

On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay submits that Ld. AR of the assessee has made general submission. When the notices were served/or responded/complied though only through seeking adjournment, thus, the assessee cannot take the plea on the final order of dismissal was not served upon the assessee. On merit, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee was given sufficient opportunities, still assessee failed to avail such opportunity. Thus, the assessee does not deserve any further opportunity. Even if, the Bench is of the opinion that assessee deserves any further opportunity, matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to assessee to be more vigilant and to make proper compliance in time as and when called for.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. We find that main submission of Ld. AR of the assessee is that at the time of filing first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in Form-35 assessee provided e-mail address of his present AR i.e., JAGASHETHCAL@GMAIL.COM. However, no such notice or final order (A.Y.17-18) Nitinkumar M Patel passed by Ld. CIT(A) was not served through such e-mail, we also find that Ld.AR of the assessee fairly accepted that notices of hearing under section 250 was served through different e-mail ID and in in response to such notice, the assessee sought adjournment but mistake one of the last date of hearing, the assessee could not sought adjournment nor filed his submissions. From the screen shot of ITBA portal, we find merit in the submissions of ld AR of the assessee that neither notices under section 250 was issued on the e-mail provided by the assessee on Form-35 nor final order in dismissing the appeal was sent or served on the assessee. Thus, considering the peculiar fact and circumstances of the present case, delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Now adverting to merit to merit of assessee’s case.

We find that Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) both passed their ex parte order. We find that assessee while filing his return of income has shown income from salary as well as interest income. There is no dispute that during demonetization period, assessee made cash deposit of Rs.20,71,000/-. The Assessing Officer added entire cash deposit without giving benefit of cash-in- hand, if any, or Circular No.3 of 2017 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for guiding officer/Assessing Officer for allowing relief of certain cash deposit due to demonetization of higher currency noted in November, 2016. Considering the fact that substantial right of assessee are involved in the present case. From the actions of assessee, we find that assessee is interested in pursuing his appeal on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the file of Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order afresh and in accordance with law. Needless to direct (A.Y.17-18) Nitinkumar M Patel that before passing order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and to make timely compliance of the notice issued by Assessing Officer. With these directions, the grounds of appeal